TSR Store
- Logos, ownership icons

This page sponsored by Extreme Restraints    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : O&P : "The Possession in O&P" 1 2 The Possession in O&P (14) Thu 5 Nov 09, 10:28 PM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! Possession is the only really new concept in the O&P Manifesto, and approximately represents the "D/s" half of O&P. "O&P" itself is partly intended as a single name that includes almost all M/s and many D/s relationships. A name like "M/s+D/s" for this would be both clumsy and inaccurate, since some D/s takes the form of things like roleplay. There's also the issue of people using the name "D/s" to mean the whole of BDSM, which further confuses discussions about these subjects. What kind of D/s is "possession" talking about? It's helpful to read it as "being in possession of" rather than "a possession", since it's not meant to be another word for "property" or "slave". Fundamentally it's about the dominant being in control and the submissive being there for the dominant's purposes. One useful analogy is with renting a house. You sign for the keys and then you are in possession of the house. You don't own it, but it's yours to do with as you please within reason while you have the keys. You can certainly rearrange the furniture and have parties whenever you want in a way you can't do in a hotel. Even if you have to behave responsibly or lose possession of the house (eg because it burns down), the house is fundamentally there for you and not vice versa. One of the aims in spelling all this out with O&P is to create a space within D/s where it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals. That these dominants are the superiors of their submissives, just as an employer is their servant's superior. These ideas are commonplace in M/s - the Ownership half of O&P if you like - but less so in much of D/s and BD/SM. "Possession" is a deliberately asymmetric word with which to signpost spaces and relationships where these attitudes are ok in D/s too. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. Edited Fri 6 Nov 09, 12:23 PM by Tanos 7 Nov 09, 8:14 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 2 yrs Tanos wrote: "O&P" itself is partly intended as a single name that includes almost all M/s and many D/s relationships. A name like "M/s+D/s" for this would be both clumsy and inaccurate, since some D/s takes the form of things like roleplay. There's also the issue of people using the name "D/s" to mean the whole of BDSM, which further confuses discussions about these subjects. Yes. Tanos wrote: Fundamentally it's about the dominant being in control and the submissive being there for the dominant's purposes. And... Even if you have to behave responsibly or lose possession of the house (eg because it burns down), the house is fundamentally there for you and not vice versa. I don't think these ideas would make a basis for a healthy or enduring relationship. Or at least they don't reflect the nature of my relationship or the more solid of those I'm personally familiar with. A submissive partner gives the trappings of personal power and self-direction (material, physical, psychological) over to the dominant who, in return, manages/administrates in his/her best interest. The reasons or ideology to go along with it do vary from one couple to the next, but without that basic process (and it has to be ongoing) the relationship falls apart. A state of possession doesn't alter basic human needs and in the absence of the submissive's own active abilities, the responsibility to see that they're still met must fall to the dominant. I think a dominant must be there for his/her submissive as much or more than vice-versa. I do think the utilitarian aspect is significant, but it's more of a benefit (to both) that comes out of the nature of the relationship rather than being its basis. Tanos wrote: "...it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals. That these dominants are the superiors of their submissives, just as an employer is their servant's superior." Yes - this is the most common confusion I come upon. I don't know if it's due to what we see in most of our politicians and other authority figures, but most are resistant to the notion because they don't believe it can be approached with benevolence and responsibility. Sometimes it frustrates me, although I don't suppose I can blame them. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 7 Nov 09, 10:44 PM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! EvaMaria wrote: Tanos wrote: Fundamentally it's about the dominant being in control and the submissive being there for the dominant's purposes. And... Even if you have to behave responsibly or lose possession of the house (eg because it burns down), the house is fundamentally there for you and not vice versa. I don't think these ideas would make a basis for a healthy or enduring relationship. Or at least they don't reflect the nature of my relationship or the more solid of those I'm personally familiar with. A submissive partner gives the trappings of personal power and self-direction (material, physical, psychological) over to the dominant who, in return, manages/administrates in his/her best interest. The reasons or ideology to go along with it do vary from one couple to the next, but without that basic process (and it has to be ongoing) the relationship falls apart. A state of possession doesn't alter basic human needs and in the absence of the submissive's own active abilities, the responsibility to see that they're still met must fall to the dominant. Yes, I agree with that completely. The Responsibility post is (probably) next week but the section about it in the O&P Manifesto says: "4. Responsibility for maintaining property. As with all property, if it is not looked after over time, the ability to use or own it is lost. For this reason, needs cannot be left unaddressed over time, by the definition of "needs" themselves. Maintenance of property demands responsibility, and in O&P this is a cardinal virtue of dominants and owners. " and I would include all sorts of things in "needs", including social contact and even the kind of purposefulness provided by a career in some cases. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. 7 Nov 09, 11:31 PM thegildedlili AU, 20 mths Y! EvaMaria wrote: A submissive partner gives the trappings of personal power and self-direction (material, physical, psychological) over to the dominant who, in return, manages/administrates in his/her best interest. Eva, do you mean the dominant manages things in their own best interests or in the submissive's best interests? If it's the latter, I don't necessarily think this is always the case, I think that often the dominant manages things in their own best interests and this may (or may not) benefit the submissive by default. That to me that is similar to the discussion around the submissive being there for the dominant; for me that is true, and I get my needs met by default, and I do see my needs as secondary to that of my D/O/M, but I certainly don't think this is universal in D/s. Tanos wrote: "O&P" itself is partly intended as a single name that includes almost all M/s and many D/s relationships. A name like "M/s+D/s" for this would be both clumsy and inaccurate, since some D/s takes the form of things like roleplay. There's also the issue of people using the name "D/s" to mean the whole of BDSM, which further confuses discussions about these subjects. My next question follows that notion, I don't know how O&P fits with something like roleplay, since in that situation I don't always see that the submissive is there for the dominant, sometimes it's the other way around, yet it's still called D/s. It does seem that some people (lots, actually!) are using the term D/s as a way to make themselves feel good, when it's actually no reflection on the type of relationship they have. I see all the time on sites like CM people placing such things in their ads as “I want to do x, y and z, I love to please my slave”. For me, that isn't the focus of a D/s relationship at all, and doesn't support O&P as a concept that fits *all* of these types of relationships, since in many cases it seems obvious that it's not even about the dominant party at all. Tanos wrote: One of the aims in spelling all this out with O&P is to create a space within D/s where it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals. That these dominants are the superiors of their submissives, just as an employer is their servant's superior. These ideas are commonplace in M/s - the Ownership half of O&P if you like - but less so in much of D/s and BD/SM. "Possession" is a deliberately asymmetric word with which to signpost spaces and relationships where these attitudes are ok in D/s too. People really seem to hate this idea! For me, that's how it is, and the asymmetry is one of the main things I'm attracted to in an M/s or D/s (or O/p) relationship, but when I read boards like IC for example, people really don't seem to be able to deal with it, whereas to me it's pretty clear. I guess it's about the *way* you do D/s which appears to be extremely diverse across the range of people who identify as being in this type of relationship. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke Edited 8 Nov 09, 3:18 AM by thegildedlili 7 Nov 09, 11:58 PM 650-736-585 GR, 11 mths Tanos wrote: [...] One of the aims in spelling all this out with O&P is to create a space within D/s where it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals. That these dominants are the superiors of their submissives, just as an employer is their servant's superior. These ideas are commonplace in M/s - the Ownership half of O&P if you like - but less so in much of D/s and BD/SM. [...] Master Tanos, By general definition, isn't a slave inferior, by default, towards his owning Master? I always viewed the whole M/s relationship as an unequal relationship due the different level of dynamics: Master orders, slave obeys. So... Master/slave or Dom/sub, ARE not equal by default?... Am I so wrong? • I humbly ask for your tolerance and forgiveness to my ignorance. 8 Nov 09, 12:21 AM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! thegildedlili wrote: I don't know how O&P fits with something like roleplay, since in that situation I don't always see that the submissive is there for the dominant, sometimes it's the othere way aropund, yet it's still called D/s. I'm going to reply some more later on, but I should say that is one of the kinds of D/s that O&P is leaving out when I say (approximately) that "O&P relationships = M/s relationships + some D/s relationships" Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. 8 Nov 09, 12:28 AM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! 650-736-585 wrote: So... Master/slave or Dom/sub, ARE not equal by default?... Some non-O&P D/s relationships have the dominant in charge (one inequality) but are still intended to be equal in almost all other ways. So we can't really say that all D/s relationships are the same on this, and to me, that's why it's useful to have a name like O&P. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. 8 Nov 09, 4:57 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 2 yrs thegildedlili wrote: EvaMaria wrote: A submissive partner gives the trappings of personal power and self-direction (material, physical, psychological) over to the dominant who, in return, manages/administrates in his/her best interest. Eva, do you mean the dominant manages things in their own best interests or in the submissive's best interests? If it's the latter, I don't necessarily think this is always the case, I think that often the dominant manages things in their own best interests and this may (or may not) benefit the submissive by default. That to me that is similar to the discussion around the submissive being there for the dominant; for me that is true, and I get my needs met by default, and I do see my needs as secondary to that of my D/O/M, but I certainly don't think this is universal in D/s. I did mean the submissive's best interests. I agree of course that neither method is universal and I do know couples representative of many different methods who are happy. But this is the issue I have with approach you've described: I think if the dominant takes control of those aspects of the submissive's life and personality formerly used by the submissive for his/her own benefit/self-direction, the dominant must then act in a way that replaces them to the same effect - it's a logistical matter of investment and return. If he doesn't (I'm going to use the masculine for dominant and the feminine for submissive here - just for clarity) and if her needs are regularly/continually given secondary consideration she will fail to thrive and improve (on a personal level) at the same rate as her partner. As time passes, she becomes less and less her dominant's equal physically, psychologically and intellectually. It might be in 2 years or twenty, but eventually the mis-match becomes so great it causes the relationship to deteriorate, at least on an emotional or commitment level. It's basically the 1950's Housewife Syndrome revisited. That's not to say her needs ought to be given priority on a per incident basis. Managing a life requires keeping a balance in mind - averages and the Big Picture, so to speak, and that applies whether the approach is direct or by proxy. I do think "second-party" management takes a particular talent and finesse and not every person can do it well. C, along with some other dominants I know, has this ability and I admire it. I'll own that I don't understand its appeal, but I do appreciate it. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 8 Nov 09, 5:55 AM thegildedlili AU, 20 mths Y! Well when you put it like that.... As always you make some cogent and very thought provoking points. For some reason I struggle with the whole notion of a submissive's (or slave's) “needs”, especially as someone who considers herself fairly low maintenance, but your post has made me think about what I'm actually grappling with. I think it's partly that the concept of needs is so arbitrary and subjective, so I don't think it's possible to make some blanket “rule” about what a submissive's (or slave's) might be, but suggesting as I did they they can be met solely through meeting their owner's needs is , I agree with you, erroneous. Your point “That's not to say her needs ought to be given priority on a per incident basis." has definitely clarified things for me somewhat though. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke Edited 9 Nov 09, 9:24 AM by thegildedlili 9 Nov 09, 7:36 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 2 yrs thegildedlili wrote: As always you make some cogent and very thought provoking points. Thank you, very much. (The property formerly known as Camille ) 9 Nov 09, 10:34 AM thegildedlili AU, 20 mths Y! Tanos wrote: I'm going to reply some more later on, but I should say that is one of the kinds of D/s that O&P is leaving out when I say (approximately) that "O&P relationships = M/s relationships + some D/s relationships" Regards, Tanos I'm interested in this actually Tanos. Do you intend to "market" the O&P concept and terminology that you discuss in the manifesto in such a way that it becomes part of everyday language when referring to these types of relationships? Also, how do you think the misuse of the O&P terminology in the same way that M/s and D/s are often misused or used "incorrectly" can be avoided? Perhaps you don't care about either of these things and I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I am interested. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke Next page